France had a pretty big interest in trying to stop Germany early as they are neighbours and the danger was direct, so no my take would be different. To a question about the US declaring war to China over Taiwan or even Baltic countries.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
France had a pretty big interest in trying to stop Germany early as they are neighbours and the danger was direct, so no my take would be different. To a question about the US declaring war to China over Taiwan or even Baltic countries.
Hitler's attention was forced eastwards. Poland was a stepping stone towards the USSR. France didn't declare war based on a direct threat towards its territory, it did so because they (and Britain) had signed a mutual defence treaty with Poland.
It would seem that much of the Western hysteria has come from some esoteric analysis that the next week or so is the best time to invade due to weather conditions. In actuality they have BTG's equipped to handle it in the initial thrust, and the supply problem will exist anyway the further west they go, especially if rails are blown. Though they also have units adept at fixing rail lines. The whole weather thing is a factor but a much overstated one.
@harms How are you reading the situation currently?
From my viewpoint I see no significant change, and I certainly don't see Putin charging for Kiev. More sabre rattling certainly, and he could make a play for Donbass or even Odessa though the latter is risky as feck with NASAM2 in play.
@harms How are you reading the situation currently?
From my viewpoint I see no significant change, and I certainly don't see Putin charging for Kiev. More sabre rattling certainly, and he could make a play for Donbass or even Odessa though the latter is risky as feck with NASAM2 in play.
No I think that none of them want a war with each other and they all know it. I also don't think that their respective actions are largely based on how the other will react from a military standpoint and I actually think that they are all more worried about indirect actions than war. Because they are all aware of how monumentally expensive a conflict would be. That was the idea behind they don't care about the West in the context of a Ukraine vs Russia conflict, they don't need to care, it's not how these nations want to deal with disagreements.
Has the nasam actually been battle tested?
So for you it's a similar context, that should lead to the same answer?
Yep, it's a potent system*. They are used all over the world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASAMS (though doesn't list all operators)
In an urban area it's virtually impossible to disable without huge civilian casualties as they can spin the radars they use around.
*Important to note there's no confirmation afaik that it's been deployed to Odessa. Just makes sense in my mind.
It's your view that peer nations won't go to war with each other over a 3rd smaller less capable nation , even when they are bound to do so by a treaty. I was providing a historical context why that is not the case.
If what you say is so certain, Taiwan would have been annexed by now.
Skimmed the article but didn't see if it has been fired at war. Either way, it's a tactical system no? Not comparable in range to s300/400 for instance.
That's not what I said, I didn't tell you that it was absolute which is why I mentioned France and Germany reaction in the case of Baltic nations. Unless I'm mistaken and made it absolute?
My point was also made in 2022 not 1939, in 2022 members of the security council are incredibly more powerful than their equivalent in 1939. And it wasn't made in the context following WWI.
Sorry, I know you are making a serious point but it immediately reminded me of Chernobyl.
"Graphite on the roof? You're saying the reactor is exposed? No, you must be mistaken!"
Why?
I won’t make any assumptions — even here the feeling changes from week to week if not from day to day. 10 days ago everyone was talking about de-escalation, now we’re on the brink of a war again.
As for the supposed invasion of it indeed happens, I think the most realistic (as in the closest to how I believe Putin thinks) plan was to start the invasion from all sides, quickly take over the East & force Kiev into accepting a new system (like having a co-existing pro-Western President & pro-Eastern Premier Minister duo being somehow constitutionalized) and including DNR & LNR back as a part of Ukraine (so that Putin has a significant amount of pro-Russian voters in Ukraine).
An old-fashioned occupation would be next to impossible. Ukraine has 44 million people, that’s almost a third of the population of Russia (which is south of 140 mil). Considering the general attitude towards Russia in modern Ukraine I can’t imagine peaceful coexistence on occupied territory and Russia simply doesn’t have enough man-power to handle 44 mil under control.
At least that’s what I’m hoping for.
It does not matter the absolute power , what matters is the relative power between the adversaries. And between US China they are not equal, US is overall notably stronger, and purely in naval / air force terms overwhelmingly stronger than China, at least for now. They can thwart an invasion on Taiwan purely by their naval and af assets in Japan and the region.
I think it was a genuine denial by the physicists though, who were unable to process the scale of what happened. Putin just lied — to an audience that clearly knew that he was lying. Sorry for responding to your tongue-in-cheek comment with another correction, I’m very fun at parties
It's likely a feature of the [Israeli] iron dome, though a newer version. Hard to know what the Israelis are up to, but with Raytheons fingerprints on both you're imagine some crossover.
Aye, tactical SAM's. But taking Odessa would be an amphibious assault, involving paratroopers, choppers, and jets. Whilst the stingers are mostly just a PR exercise and won't touch the jets, it likely can and will cause heavy casualties. (Literally the only way to get extra BTG's into Odessa would be by air until the ships with the initial ones had turned around and come back. [from Crimea]
This is why it makes most sense (militarily) to just blockade them.
40 jokes/hourI think it was a genuine denial by the physicists though, who were unable to process the scale of what happened. Putin just lied — to an audience that clearly knew that he was lying. Sorry for responding to your tongue-in-cheek comment with another correction, I’m very fun at parties
That's not what absolute meant in that context. I'm talking about whether I made you think that my point applied to all context.
That's how I see it. I don't think China actually want Taiwan that badly or that it's worth it. And I don't think the US would start a war with a large nation over Taiwan. It's in the interest of no one.
It was a reference to the "more powerful" comment, just happened to be the same word you used earlier.
Taiwan is in a top-20 of world’s economics by GDP. And historically it’s absolutely crucial to China — it’s existence is literally a threat* to their sovereignty as a country (since Taiwan, just like China itself, claims to be the only legitimate ruler of the entirety of China’s lands).
Think of Crimea for Russia (that actually doesn’t make sense from an economic perspective, it costs Russia tons more than its losing on it even before we count in the sanctions) and then multiple it by 10. And Russia did annex Crimea.
* from an idealogical perspective
Last edited:
Not sure that's the best argument, given that Czechoslovakia had already been sold out by their British and French allies, just before. It could also be argued that Britain and France violated their agreements with Poland by refusing to declare war on the Soviet Union when they also invaded in the wake of the German invasion. Obviously we should be glad it didn't happen, but that's kinda the point here. Countries will do what they feel is in their best interest, and if they have to they will break treaties to do it. Article 5 of NATO is probably too ironclad for anyone to wilfully break it (without subsequently giving up on NATO entirely), but anything short of that is plausible.
He doesn't have enough troops for a sustained assault though, and everybody knows it. Assuming Ukraine are getting good advice (and they will be), they'll simply initially retreat South from Kiev to not get flanked, West from Donbass blowing up all the bridges, and assume that Russians in general avoid the cities. And in the south they just need to hold Odessa. It'd be painful, but hella more painful for Putin. And this isn't Afghanistan where everybody loves/fears them; they'd need to take the cities relatively fast too.
Either something isn't adding up, or I'm not seeing something.
I see. But it does matter because the casualties and how fast they increase is part of the calculations before entering a conflict. Surely you don't think that any of these nations are willing to kill or lose hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives for little gains, you think that the public response won't be loud when you can't visibly justify it?
I think it was a genuine denial by the physicists though, who were unable to process the scale of what happened. Putin just lied — to an audience that clearly knew that he was lying. Sorry for responding to your tongue-in-cheek comment with another correction, I’m very fun at parties
No it's fine! And you're probably right, everything in the physicists' training taught them that an explosion was impossible. The dramatisation would have you believe that they were deceitful and calculating - but actually this certainly wasn't the case for all of them, Viktor Bryukhanov for instance was portrayed as a cold, callous man who purposefully misled officials, but in reality he was modest, regretful and humble in the aftermath of what happened.
Annnnyway I am derailing your point, sorry. Thank you for clarifying about Putin. In England, peoples' opinions about him are never balanced - he's either:
a) A tyrant, a Stalin-lite who is nostalgic for the USSR and wants to conquer all of Eastern Europe. Or
b) According to Reddit's China and Russia* subs, as well as the Daily Mail comments section (or RT comments section for that matter) - then he is the saviour of freedom from tyrannical NATO imperialism and stands firm against western aggression.
* Some of the people posting on Reddit's China and Russia subs are actually edgy American teenagers
What could lead you to believe this series of claims?
The idea the US wouldn't start a war is somewhat plausible and logical.
The idea that China doesn't want Taiwan badly is bonkers.
You think that China wants it badly enough to start a conflict?
A conflict with who? I think that China really want it for very obvious reasons, and that the US maintain enough deliberate ambiguity for the Chinese to fear very serious conflict with them should they take Taiwan.
It's literally the only reason it's not been annexed. If your theory that there was no chance the US would seriously react was true, it would have been annexed by now. It's economically, culturally, and strategically important.
What makes it literally the only reason?
That is true, it was a selfish move and the whole appeasement was wrong. Think it was discussed here somewhat already. But the thing is, they eventually drew a line and acted on it when crossed. They might have very well let Hitler's salami tactics continue, I am sure there would have been some voices calling for just that in those countries.
I won’t try to act as a military expert, which I’m very much not, so I’m just retelling the version that I found the most plausible (it’s somewhere in this thread but I doubt that I’ll be able to dig it up). It was also simply a simulation, maybe he has something different in mind. Or, maybe, his military plan is just shit, I wouldn’t put it past Russia, considering the level of incompetence on each decision-making level.
How tolerant would the population be of failure, and how much trouble would he personally be in if it's a giant feckup? Is there an actual risk to him here personally, or does he still have an iron fist? (I heard his total grip had diminished somewhat since the early days)
Why else do you think that China haven't invaded Taiwan? What other reason could there be?
The obvious reason would be that it would still require a conflict with Taiwan and that it's not necessarily worth it at the moment. It I'm not mistaken today, it would very badly received by Taiwan's population? My question would be whether there is a case to be made about China thinking that Taiwan isn't ripe for the taking yet?
Odessa would be fairly vulnerable from the Black Sea, where Putin does have his share of naval resources at his disposal. There is already a mild bit of pro-Russian sentiment in the city and Putin did try to take it in 2014 by way of fomenting internal to soften it up as a pretext to a potential military entry point. That never really took flight and was repelled. He also has about 1500 troops in Transnistria that he can use to compliment a Black Sea amphibious landing in and around Odessa. If his intent is simply to coerce the Ukrainians and NATO into signing a deal then none of this will matter. But if his actual intent is to take all of historically Russian speaking Ukraine, then Odessa would definitely be one of the prizes.
Last edited:
Proper horror show this is. The lust for war of these powerful nations is what will one day result in the end of days as we know it. Wether is happens now or later full scale war is inevitable sooner or later. Following this progress with great worry.
We discussed Odessa a bit above. I believe that's gonna be one of the most risky parts of the entire invasion. If it goes just mildly wrong, they'll be relying on paras/specials alone until the ships can turn around and bring some more BTG's. A lot depends on how brutally Ukraine actually try to defend. If they deploy SAM's (and not just MANPADS there) its gonna be an absolute bloodbath, no matter who wins.
They would, but they'd simply crush them like they did to Hong Kong, where everybody hates them but are powerless. You could be right of course, and the leadership might genuinely think that political pressure might lead to reuinification. I don't know all that much about modern China honestly.
Right but NATO's remit isn't to act as the world police force. Narrowly, it is a defensive force for the protection of its members.
Of course, the reality may be different and they may indeed get involved in different conflicts that has nothing to do with the actual security of any of its members. But NATO are not honour bound to defend any other territory.
The morality is another matter again of course.
I don't think that the context is similar to Hong Kong but could be mistaken. But the problem is that you don't necessarily want to crush people, if your goal is to rule then crushing that same population isn't necessarily the favored option, you don't necessarily want to have to deal with a strong insurgency.